When the Cure Doesnât Serve the People, the System Fails the Constitutional TestPublic money, on its face, should yield public benefit. But every year, the federal government sends almost sixty billion dollars to universities like Harvard for research and development, most of it through the Department of Health and Human Services. A university takes federal funding, makes a breakthrough, and licenses it to a drug company. Nothing stops that company from setting a high price, because while the research was public, the product isnât.Taxpayers fund the research, then get stuck paying again at the pharmacy. For many, the cost of needed treatment puts the remedy out of reach.âŚWe drift because we forget our purpose. The Constitution names six national goals: Union, Justice, Domestic tranquility, Liberty, the common defense, and the general welfare. Every law and every dollar must serve at least one. When a policy misses the mark, it serves power, not people.The point of American governance is to serve the people. That philosophy is the reason we were born at war. Why we owe allegiance to no king. Why we have our uniquely structured Constitution.We lose sight of aligning our effort with these national goals. We need to get back on track. So today, weâre asking whether public funding for private research still serves the general welfare. Does it help all of us, or just a few? To answer that, we go back to the beginning, with a boy named Jimmy, a Boston hospital, and a small act of hope that changed cancer research.Jimmyâs Radio MiracleIn May 1948, a boy named Einar Gustafson wanted to watch his favorite baseball team, the Boston Braves. Einar had a problem: he didnât have a television. But he had a bigger problem. He was in the Childrenâs Hospital ward in Boston, dying of leukemia.At the time, leukemia was effectively a death sentence. It had been first identified a hundred years earlier, but there was still no treatment, just blood transfusions and comfort care. Then came Dr. Sidney Farber.âŚFarber was a pathologist at Childrenâs Hospital. Heâd grown tired of trying to learn why a patient didnât respond to treatment after they had died and decided to try something new. He devised an experimental blood treatment he thought would block the food cancer cells needed to grow. His small study of just 16 children showed that 10 of them improved. The remissions didnât last, but the fact that they happened at all was groundbreaking. It was the first time a chemical agent had ever worked against a non-solid tumor. Farber had introduced the world to chemotherapy, or now the more common term, just âchemoâ treatment for cancer.That same year, Farber and a member of the Variety Childrenâs Charity were looking for a way to raise money for research. They needed a face for the cause. They found it in Einar, but to protect his identity, they called him âJimmy.ââŚSo they told his story on a national radio broadcast. They said Jimmy wanted a television to watch his Braves. They said cancer research needed support. The country responded. In just eight minutes of airtime, Americans sent in $231,000, more than three million in todayâs dollars. The Jimmy Fund was born.That money launched the Childrenâs Cancer Research Foundation, which later became the Sidney Farber Cancer Center, and eventually the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, now Harvard Universityâs principal cancer research center.But Farber didnât stop at the lab. He kept pressing Congress, explaining that major breakthroughs would take national funding and sustained effort. And Congress listened. Between 1957 and 1967, the National Cancer Instituteâs budget more than tripled.âŚThen, in 1971, President Richard Nixon called on Congress for an extra $100 million, nearly $700 million today, to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer. Later that year, he signed the National Cancer Act, declared a formal War on Cancer, and pumped billions into cancer research nationwide. The act expanded the National Cancer Instituteâs power, created new research centers, and marked the first time the federal government treated cancer as a coordinated national challenge.Since the increased 1971 national commitment, the American people have sent more than $1 trillion to universities for medical research. Progress slowly advances. This year, Harvard Medical tested an anti-tumor vaccine with promising results. âŚWe could look at this story as either a success or a failure. A success in that private contributions provided seed money that helped create a medical breakthrough. We have made great advancements. A failure that significant public obligations showed diminishing returns. We have not cured cancer, and American life expectancies have not increased in the last 20 years. But that is too short-sighted. Itâs not that we should rely only on private funding commitments, or that public funding for private institutions is irresponsible.Likewise, the crux of the matter is not that public funding is essential to make progress in research and development.The decisive point is: does our effort advance our progress towards achieving one or more of our national goals? Let's ask the hard questions clearly.Justice and the General WelfareCan we definitively say that giving universities money for research and development improves the general welfare? Can we say the effort advances justice?Certainly, national infrastructure benefits the whole country. Medical research depends on nationwide clinical trials, standardized data sharing, drug-approval pipelines, and outreach to rural and underserved areas. Only the federal government has the mandate and capacity to serve everyone. We donât serve the general welfare if cures stay bottled up in Boston.But if we pay for research and development, and private companies turn the patents into private property and set prices that most families canât afford, then the investment the American people made to advance justice and general welfare falls short.The prostate-cancer drug Xtandi is a classic example. Our money helped discover it, but the company that holds the license lists the therapy at more than one hundred twenty-nine thousand dollars a year. More than ten thousand dollars a month! Far beyond the reach of most American families.Patient advocates have multiple times asked the government to use its lawful authority to force wider access. NIH refused both times. In total, this authority has never been used in the forty-plus years it has existed. Let me say that again.In more than four decades, the federal government has never once stepped in to come to the aid of the American people to lower the price of a publicly funded drug.When a publicly funded drug ends up on the market at a price well beyond what the average American family can afford, the spending fails the general welfare test. It also fails the justice test, because wealth divides the rich and poor, urban and rural, insured and uninsured.Yes, inequality exists everywhere. But America was built to be different, on purpose.Part of the reason America exists is justice. Every state in the union agreed that if the people fund medical research, then a poor man and a rich man should have equal access to the benefit.So⌠it seems the way we structure public funding for cancer research at Harvard and other universities doesnât align with our national goals.How Would We Change That?Right now, universities take our money in the form of federal research grants, but only part of that money goes to the actual research. The rest, sometimes nearly half, goes toward overhead. This includes administrative costs, building maintenance, and salaries for university staff who never touch the lab. At Harvard, that indirect rate is nearly 70 percent for research conducted on campus. The indirect rate for research conducted at other Harvard facilities is still high, 26 percent. So when the American people send a million dollars to find treatments for cancer, four hundred thousand might go toward the effort. The rest feeds the institution.Second, we have a problem with private ownership of public money. Since 1980, universities have been allowed to patent inventions made with public money. They can then license those patents, often exclusively, to drug companies. Thereâs no requirement that the final product be affordable or widely available. The government has the power to step in when the public is denied the benefit, but in over forty years, it has never once used it.Third, we admit where trials fall short. There are rules encouraging inclusion across race, gender, and geography, but enforcement is weak. Most trials still happen at elite hospitals. Rural Americans, tribal communities, and low-income patients are left out.Again, the structure of public funding for cancer research doesnât align with our national goals. It doesnât reflect justice or promote general welfare. A better system would start with a simple rule: 100 percent of public money goes to the research. If a university believes in the work, it can cover its own administrative costs. The taxpayerâs role is to fund discovery, not to subsidize building cafeterias and paying deans.Next, any treatment developed with public dollars must be subject to a universal access guarantee. That means open licenses for nonprofit hospitals and VA clinics, and a price ceiling for commercial sale. If a private company uses public research to build a profitable product, the benefit must reach the people who paid for it.Finally, we demand equity in clinical trials. That means conducting research across the country and proving that results apply to everyone. If we measure every dollar spent by whether it serves the people, across race, income, and geography, then we align with the Constitution.The effort isnât intended to punish universities or end research. The effort intends to ensure that the commitment the American people make to justice and their general welfare serves the nation in return.WaitâŚWhat Happened to Einar? Einar Gustafson, or âJimmy,â lived. He left the hospital and went home. He stayed out of the public eye until 1998, when he revealed his identity at a Jimmy Fund event in Boston. By then, he was in his sixties, working as a potato farmer in Maine.We donât lack commitment or generosity. We donât even lack funding.What we lack is purpose and structure. Our question isnât whether we should fund research. We already do. Itâs not whether we can make breakthroughs. We already have.Our question is whether weâre serious about what our Constitution says that funding is for. This story isnât about punishing Harvard. Itâs about the promises we made when we became a country. Itâs about justice, the general welfare, and holding ourselves to our highest standard.If our effort doesnât serve justice and reach the people who paid for it, then we are failing to achieve the goals America stands for. So, should we continue to fund cancer research at Harvard and other universities?May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/monument-music/ambitionLicense code: PRSOQJAYAAYGTXA5 Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Jul 1, 2025
14 min
Misunderstanding Iranâs Ideological Nature Invites Endless ConflictAmerican B-2 bombers struck Iranâs uranium-enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Trump called the raid successful. Tehran vowed retaliation.Washington insists the raids sought to halt Iranâs march toward a nuclear weapon. No one in America supports a nuclear-armed Iran. Iranâs nuclear march is a real threat, but unilateral bombing rarely brings lasting stability; it breeds resentment and invites retaliation. We look at Iran and see a country, but that simplified lens is short-sighted. Iran acts like a cause as much as a state, and when we fight a cause, we forfeit the momentum every strategist tries to preserve. Because Iran sees itself both as a sovereign state and as a sacred mission, every rash strike feeds its cause; only disciplined patience denies its advantage.Iran cannot defeat us militarily, but it doesnât need to. It only needs to provoke us into endless conflict. It conducted limited strikes in response, but Tehranâs answer may come months or years from now; Iran has a long memory. When they do respond, we must act with disciplined patience. If they close the Strait of Hormuz, how do we respond? If a proxy kills US troops? If a cyber-strike paralyzes East Coast shipping overnight?Disciplined.Patience.Itâs not to say that we canât act with appropriate force. But we wonât achieve national objectives by force alone.To grasp why Iran acts like a cause, not just a country, we must start long before the revolution. Before the Shah. Before the CIA. We start with Persia; not a place on the map, but an idea of moral kingship and enduring memory. We start with the ruler who first fused power and reverence: Cyrus the Great.Cyrus the Great and the Authority to BelieveAround 700 BC, a Hebrew prophet named Isaiah wrote a decree the Almighty spoke through him. He claimed that a foreign ruler, at the time unborn and unknown, would one day subdue nations and harness kings. He would free a captive people and rebuild their ruined city. The text named him directly: Cyrus. It was remarkable. No other foreigner is singled out like that in the Hebrew texts. And certainly not someone who wouldnât be born for another 150 years.We donât know exactly how the name made it into the scrolls. But we do know what happened next.In 539 BC, Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon, in what is now southern Iraq. At the time, Babylon was the most powerful city in the world. Its walls were legendary. Its temples massive. Its armies feared.But Cyrus didnât need to lay siege to the city. The priests of Babylon opened the gates. Cyrus walked in without bloodshed, declared himself king, and set the captives free, including the Jewish people, who had been exiled there for 70 years.Rather than erase Babylonian culture, Cyrus did something rare: he preserved it. He didnât burn the temples. He rebuilt them. He didnât force anyone to worship his gods. Instead, he issued a decree, now carved into clay and housed in the British Museum. He declared that all people under his rule could worship freely, in their own languages, in their own lands. Some scholars call it the first human rights charter in recorded history. In 1971, the Shah of Iran presented a replica of the Cyrus Cylinder to the United Nations. The artifact is still on display at UN headquarters in New York, a 2,500-year-old document that helped shape modern human rights in governance.Cyrus wielded political power through a moral framework. He legitimized his rule through divine-sanctioned tolerance, not fear.Cyrus wasnât just a conqueror. He was a strategist. He believed the Almighty gave him authority over the known world. He ruled through force when necessary, but through legitimacy whenever possible. His empire didnât just stretch across continents. It was stitched together through tolerance, diplomacy, and something resembling vision.Iran, once Persia, still draws from that heritage. Iran sees itself as a nation, but also an idea. One that mixes governance with belief.Todayâs Iran is built on an entirely different religion, but its political structure echoes the same fusion of moral authority and statecraft. Its constitution invokes divine authority. The Supreme Leader governs people both inside and outside the borders of Iran through law and their proclamation of truth.So when we in America look at Iran and see only a hostile government, we miss the deeper architecture. Iran doesnât see itself as just a state. Itâs a symbol backed by thousands of years of belief that statehood and faith are separate but the same.That fusion between divine purpose and political authority continues to shape revolution in Iran. Including the one we started. The Day Democracy Died in TehranIn 1953, Mohammad Mossadegh was the Prime Minister of Iran. He was elected by parliament, immensely popular, and bold. Mossadegh nationalized Iranâs oil, kicked out the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP), and demanded that Iranians control their own resources.London and Washington panicked. Together, MI6 and the CIA launched a covert operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to remove Mossadegh from power.The plan was old-school regime change. We bribed newspapers and paid thugs to stage fake riots. They worked with military officers loyal to the Shah, who had fled the country during the unrest. After just a few chaotic days, Mossadegh was arrested. The Shah returned in triumph, flown back like a king in exile.To the West, the coup restored order, but many Iranians strongly objected.They watched as Britain and America overthrew their democratically elected leader with foreign cash and royal approval. They saw that the Shah didnât stand for Iran; he stood for Britain and America. And even though the oil kept flowing, anger simmered.âŚFast forward 10 years.In 1963, Iranâs Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, launched what he called the White Revolution. This initiative included land reform, womenâs voting rights, and Western-style law. On paper, it looked modern. In practice, to many, it looked like Western intrusion dressed as reform.A man named Ruhollah Khomeini objected to the Western influence. Before he was the face of a revolution, Khomeini was just a cleric with a sharp tongue and a sharper pen. In Khomeiniâs eyes, the White Revolution looked like surrender.He saw the reforms as a betrayal, not just of Islam, but of Iran itself. The Shah wasnât acting alone. American advisors were everywhere. Foreign capital was reshaping Tehran. And then came the final insult: a law granting US military personnel full legal immunity inside Iran. If an American soldier shot an Iranian in the street, Khomeini warned, no court in the country could touch him.He stood in the pulpit and thundered:âThey have reduced the Iranian people to a level lower than that of an American dog.âThe Shahâs government didnât take long to respond. In 1964, they kicked Khomeini out. First to Turkey. Then to Iraq. Eventually, to a small village outside Paris. But exile didnât silence him. âŚFrom abroad, Khomeini recorded sermons and manifestos onto cassette tapes. Those tapes were smuggled into Iran by the thousands, hidden in books, tucked into luggage, passed hand-to-hand in marketplaces and mosques. Khomeini didnât need a militia. He had a message.That message was simple: the Shah wasnât just corrupt. He was illegitimate. Real authority, Khomeini argued, didnât come from votes or tanks. It came from God and from those trained to interpret His law. This wasnât just theology. In Shia Islam, suffering for truth isnât failure. In exile, Khomeini turned his theology into a blueprint. Velayat-e Faqih: Guardianship by the Islamic jurist. In other words, rule by the clergy over the state. Not just spiritual guidance. Political rule, or an Islamic government backed by divine logic and revolutionary will. The state was built to absorb punishment and convert it into legitimacy.Iranâs people are not all the same. They hold a wide range of political, cultural, and religious beliefs, many of which differ sharply from the views of their government.But by the time Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979, millions were ready to receive him not as a man but as a symbol. The monarchy collapsed. The revolution didnât just change the regime; it changed the idea of Iran itself.Persia became Iran. Cyrus became Khomeini. But the idea stayed the same. Iran sees itself as a country of borders, and as a religion inside and outside of them. None of this excuses Iranâs actions. The regime sponsors terror, represses its people, and destabilizes the region. But thatâs exactly why misunderstanding it is so dangerous. The more crudely we respond, the more clearly we play the part they have written for us.So we return to our question:Is it possible to fight Iran without fighting Islam? The Cart Before the HorseIranâs current political structure directly inherits the ancient Persian fusion of divine authority with state governance embodied by Cyrus the Great. Cyrus legitimized his rule by weaving morality, tolerance, and religious sanction. These qualities solidified Persian power for centuries. Modern Iran mirrors this model: its leaders invoke spiritual legitimacy to justify actions inside and outside their borders. This isnât politics; it is an expression of their identity. SoâŚmaybe weâre still asking the wrong question. Instead of asking whether we can fight Iran without fighting Islam, the real question is whether we NEED to.We are not under siege. Iran is not landing troops on our shores or circling bombers over our cities. Economically, militarily, and geographically, we hold every advantage. No clock is running out. On Saturday, we chose urgency over patient discipline; now we must step back and reclaim that discipline.We are committed to Israel, but Israel is not defenseless. They are not blameless in choosing to escalate. We donât have to choose to let Israel drag us into a shooting war. We can maintain our commitment to Israel while defining our own interests, our own timeline, and our own limits. Again, we are in a position of strength. In Eastern thought, thatâs when we wait. Not because we are weak or passive, but because we are disciplined. The side with leverage doesnât chase shadows. It observes, lets the opponent move first, and watches them spend their effort and overreach.In America, we confuse patience and restraint with weakness. We think power only matters when the bombs are falling. Thatâs the cart before the horse.When Tehran answers, and if we choose to keep fighting, what would victory even look like? We could raze the nation of Iran to the ground today, but destruction is not victory. Would we seek a toppled regime? A new government that still draws legitimacy from faith, just wrapped in different slogans? Would we fight the nation, or the shadow?To achieve our national objectives, we must first observe. Then orient. Then bring decisive effort to bear at the point of advantage. If our goal is stability and not empty symbolism, then we wonât achieve national objectives by force alone. It requires leverage, clarity, and diplomacy with teeth. Military action might play a role, but diplomacy and disciplined patience must carry the weight.âŚIran is still a nation, still the shepherd of a religion. They are separate, and they are the same. Iran and Islam are intertwined. And now, for the first time in decades, the direct target of American bombs.Iran will respond, and when it does, Americaâs path forward is clear. Iran cannot defeat us militarily, but it doesnât need to; it only needs to provoke us into endless conflict. We must adopt disciplined patience, clearly define our strategic objectives, and exercise diplomacy backed by strength, not impulsive force. Our efforts must advance national interests, not the aims of those who provoke us.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/arnito/derniere-briseLicense code: 2VCROBGWUMYONCUB Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Jun 24, 2025
18 min
The SparkThis week, outrage erupted after law enforcement used force against protesters opposing ICE raids in Los Angeles and other cities. We shouldnât be surprised by any of it. For anyone paying attention, thereâs already a blueprint. The administration intends to restore their version of order.Then came the political theater. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned the violence. Governor Gavin Newsom echoed her. Senator Alex Padilla got thrown out of a meeting. Senator Bernie Sanders warned that violent protest, no matter how passionate, wonât achieve its goals.Letâs be clear. The right to PEACEFUL protest is a core feature of American identity. Most of these protests were exactly that: peaceful. But not all. Alongside them, we saw looting and destruction of public and private property. We donât argue whether Americans have the right to protest. We argue over what kind of protest is justified, and when. Just as we have a right to liberty and free expression, we have a right to domestic tranquility and order.On one hand, government exists, in part, to protect our property. Thatâs one of its most basic roles. Itâs part of why we consent to be governed in the first place. When government fails to protect whatâs ours, weâre left with two choices. We can choose to surrender that property to someone else, or defend it ourselves, with the right to bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.And on the other hand, Americans also have the right to protest their government. Even undocumented immigrants are guaranteed due process under the Fifth Amendment. When Americans believe that right is being denied, they protest. That impulse isnât lawless. Itâs constitutional.Now hereâs the harder truth. Whether we admit it or not, and even if it didnât turn out the way we thought, the American people voted for this. The plan wasnât hidden. It was published, promoted, and ultimately activated by the ballot box.The TinderThe protests and response to them were the spark. But the fuel for the fire was already stacked.Project 2025, also called Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise, wasnât just a 900-page policy recommendation. It was a blueprint. A deliberate, detailed plan to realign American policy with parts of the Constitution that some favor over others.In order to achieve its goals, Project 2025 recommended concentrating power in the executive branch, dismantling major federal agencies, and purging the civil service of those labeled âdisloyal.â Gaining consensus and working through Congress was too slow a process. It relies too much on compromise. Because of this approach, some say Project 2025 was a plan to bring a king to America.As a couple of examples from the document, page 142 recommended US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, specifically Enforcement and Removal Operations, be designated the lead agency for civil immigration enforcement. Not just at the border, but anywhere in the country. On the same page, Project 2025 further recommended that ICE officers act both with and without a warrant to arrest immigrants.Whatâs more, page 137 called on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to withhold funding from any state, city, or private organization that isnât fully aligned with federal immigration enforcement. In other words, access to disaster aid depends on loyalty.Project 2025 isnât law, but itâs not fiction either. It attempted to derive some legitimacy by using constitutional language as an outline. Unfortunately, it cherry-picks pieces of the language. Specifically, the plan aligns itself with only two of our six national goals: to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.The others, including union, justice, order (or domestic tranquility), and liberty, are notably missing from the plan.Perhaps the authors of Project 2025 donât believe conservatives have a constitutional duty to pursue justice and liberty. But they do. That duty isnât partisan. Itâs foundational to America.Even if we find the goals of Project 2025 too narrow, we shouldnât all waste all of our precious time and effort shouting at a fire thatâs already burning. Our effort is too limited, too valuable. Project 2025 recognized that there are small windows, only fleeting moments, when we have both the political consensus and the public will to achieve progress. Moments of consensus donât last. And when they come, we have to be ready. Instead of only raging against the machine, we should be working to build something better.SoâŚif we are dissatisfied with Project 2025, is political theater going to fix it? While cars and dumpsters are burning in protests in Los Angeles and other cities across America, whoâs writing Project 2029?The LogsEvery fire needs more than a spark and tinder. If we want it to last, we need logs that hold the heat and maintain the flame.Project 2025 wonât last. Not because itâs poorly organized, but because itâs incomplete. Itâs shallow and empty. It aligns itself with only two of the six national goals. We will not achieve defense or general welfare without liberty. And there can be no lasting order without justice.We donât need a plan that burns fast and fades. We need purpose with endurance. It doesnât matter whether we call it Project 2029 or something else entirely. What matters is our decisive effort and a focus, or framework, to guide it.Every part of that framework must tie back to the Constitutionâs six national goals. Union. Justice. Domestic tranquility, or order. Liberty. The common defense. The general welfare.Every government action, to include every law, every dollar spent, every policy, should be traceable to at least one of those six. If we canât do that, the action doesnât belong.Letâs take two examples: climate change spending and first-time homebuyer housing, and ask what it looks like to govern with that kind of clarity.Climate Change SpendingWe can debate the causes and consequences of climate change, but we canât debate the fact that itâs happening. Some argue that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary driver. They point to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Others believe that natural forces, like volcanic eruptions and wildfires, play a larger role.The 2022 National Security Strategy claimed that of all our challenges, âclimate change is the greatest and potentially existential for all nations.â As of that year, three laws obligated the American people to spend more than $500 billion on climate technology and clean energy. An issue of that magnitude should pass our constitutional check with ease. Letâs give it a test.âŚFirst, does climate change spending directly tie to union?We could argue that it brings Americans together around shared infrastructure, energy resilience, or the protection of common resources. But even if we fail to stop climate change, no state is going to secede from the union because of rising temperatures. So while the effort may involve shared concerns, it doesnât directly tie to the preservation of union in the constitutional sense.âŚSecond, does climate change spending directly affect justice?Justice is both equal protection under law and access to opportunity, especially for the needy, for rural families, for children growing up in communities with no escape from hardship. If climate policy helps kids who grow up in trailers or in the projects, it can serve justice.But climate spending doesnât do that. It funds industry, infrastructure, and research, much of which is concentrated in business interests, urban centers, or corporate contracts. If justice is the goal, the spending should begin with those who have the least power to adapt, the fewest resources to rebuild, and the most to lose. So while the effort may possibly benefit the needy in the long run, it doesnât directly tie to justice for Americans.âŚThird, does climate change spending directly affect domestic tranquility, or what we might call order?Climate change drives rising utility costs, unpredictable harvests, and the slow loss of reliable seasons. These all create strain beneath the surface. But does that reach the level of threatening national order?Most Americans arenât protesting in the streets over the weather. Theyâre protesting over wages, housing, policing, and rights. Climate instability may be a stress multiplier, but it isnât the source of disorder. And climate spending, as it exists today, doesnât restore trust in the system or bring peace to our communities.So while climate change may contribute to unrest in subtle ways, the spending itself does not directly preserve domestic tranquility.âŚFourth, does climate change spending directly support liberty?Liberty is the freedom to make choices about how we live and work. It also means limiting the reach of government into the private lives of citizens. When climate spending leads to regulation, such as banning gas appliances, restricting travel, or mandating energy sources, it can start to feel less like liberty and more like control.Even when well-intentioned, we must scrutinize any policy that narrows individual freedom in the name of collective benefit. If liberty is the goal, climate policy should expand options, not limit them. It should make clean energy cheaper, not mandate it. It should protect the individual, not penalize the outlier.So while some climate investments might indirectly support liberty through innovation or energy independence, the broader trend moves toward restriction. And restriction is not liberty.âŚFifth, does climate change spending directly support the common defense?Climate change has been framed as a national security threat, and in a sense, that is true. Rising sea levels can threaten naval bases. Drought and food shortages can destabilize foreign regions, creating migration pressures and conflict. Natural disasters can strain military logistics at home.But does climate change spending actually strengthen our ability to defend the nation?The funds could tie to defense if they go toward hardening bases, securing supply chains, or preparing for climate-driven conflict. But if the money is directed primarily toward consumer incentives, carbon markets, or long-term emissions modeling, then the connection is indirect at best.And even if our efforts to stop climate change fail, we will still have the capability to defend the American people and our interests worldwide. Thatâs what the defense budget ensures. Thatâs what the military trains for. Climate instability may change the terrain, but it doesnât erase our strength.So while some elements of climate policy may touch national defense, the spending itself does not directly serve that goal.âŚLast, does climate change spending directly support the general welfare?This is where the connection is strongest, at least on paper. A stable climate benefits everyone. Cleaner air, more predictable weather, and fewer disasters serve the general good. But again, the question isnât whether climate stability is good. The question is whether the spending directly applies to the American people, not just business interests.Climate change funding goes toward subsidies, research grants, and corporate incentives. That may advance long-term goals, but it bypasses the people who need it most today. If general welfare means improving the daily well-being of Americans through health, housing, food, and mobility, then climate spending should be measured by whether it helps people live better lives now, not just maybe someday.While the goal of climate action may align with general welfare in principle, we judge the spending by its outcomes. If it lifts the many, it belongs. If it benefits the few, it doesnât. The Constitution does not support spending money to benefit only a subset of America.âŚSoâŚweâve considered our six national goals. Itâs difficult to argue that climate change spending strongly supports any of them. And spending half a trillion dollars on any item should never be loosely tied to the Constitution.Letâs move on to our next example: first-time homebuyer housing.First-Time Homebuyer HousingLetâs apply the same constitutional test to another issue: first-time homebuyer housing. Unlike squishy climate change spending, this oneâs easier to track.Does it promote union? Yes. A nation of homeowners is a nation of stakeholders. Homeownership strengthens the social contract by giving people something to lose and protect.Does it serve justice? Absolutely. This one is rock solid. Justice is access to opportunity. If a child grows up in a trailer or a crowded apartment and has no path to owning a home, then weâve failed to deliver the kind of justice our Constitution demands. Does it contribute to domestic tranquility? Yes. When people can afford stable housing, theyâre less likely to fall into desperation. That means lower crime rates and stronger communities. Liberty and defenseâŚmaybe. But the connection isnât as strong as justice and order. Does it promote the general welfare? Without question. Affordable housing improves health, education, employment, and civic participation. Itâs one of the most direct, measurable investments in national well-being we can make.Compared with climate change spending, obligating funds for first-time homebuyer housing has a strong connection to Constitutional goals. SoâŚwhatâs the path?We need to apply the SBIR model, Small Business Innovation Research, to the housing market. Right now, the USDA has an SBIR program under Rural and Community Development. Itâs already authorized to fund technologies that improve life in rural America. But their scope is too narrow. They fund maybe someday research programs instead of spending funds that benefit Americans today.Instead of this narrow scope, USDA needs to earmark part of that funding every year, in every state, specifically for innovation in small, affordable homes across rural America.At the same time, we need legislative action to create a parallel SBIR program under Housing and Urban Development. Urban America has empty lots, abandoned warehouses, and entire blocks that need purpose. HUD should drive innovation in cities, spearheading ways to build affordable homes, not just funding old methods with higher price tags.The SBIR model works. It rewards innovation. It scales good ideas. Phase I grants can fund design concepts, including modular homes, prefabricated units, and even reclaimed shipping containers. Phase II can fund prototype builds. And the best designs should win support, not just by cost or materials, but by outcome. Aligning first-time homebuyer housing with Constitutional goals would be a sure win for the American people.Whoâs Writing Project 2029?These were just two examples; climate change spending and first-time homebuyer housing.But every policy deserves the same scrutiny. Tariffs. Criminal justice. Corporate subsidies. Food assistance. Each one must answer clearly: Which constitutional goal does it serve?If a policy doesnât support union, justice, domestic tranquility, liberty, common defense, or general welfare, it doesnât belong.This isnât only about constitutional fidelity. Itâs about purpose. Without a clear purpose, America drifts. Project 2025 provided a clear, but dangerously incomplete, blueprint. If we reject its narrow vision, itâs our responsibility to create something better. So, we have a willful choice.We can continue reacting to chaos rather than shaping order. We can continue engaging in political theater. Or we can commit our precious time and effort to building a lasting, purposeful framework. A framework that serves all Americans, not just the powerful.SoâŚwhoâs writing Project 2029?May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/sky-toes/the-summitLicense code: OWDO3P7AUQRZFRQB Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Jun 17, 2025
20 min
We Say We Believe in Justice. But Weâve Stopped Asking What That Actually Means.Some say it means equality. Others, freedom. Some try to manage it with policy. Others trust the market to sort it out. We argue. We legislate. We campaign.But half of working American families still need government help just to survive.Thatâs not justice. Thatâs a national failure. Weâve normalized, excused, and even celebrated this failure in partisan terms. Weâve hidden the truth. We donât lack resources. We lack clarity and intent. We donât lack compassion. We lack consensus.This isnât about left or right. Itâs about whether we still pursue the goal that founded America: justice, not for the powerful, not for the loudest voices, but for the people.Justice for the kid in the trailer or the projects. Justice for the single mom clocking in before sunrise. Justice not through handouts, but through wages. Through dignity. Through the freedom to work and build a life.This piece asks a hard question: If none of our political tribes is delivering justice, how do we intend to?And weâll offer a real answer. Not another slogan. Not another tax. Not another mandate. A real answer, starting from a truth too many have forgotten: we will only achieve justice by building consensus.Itâs a Truth as Old as Humanity Itself We take the advantages weâre given instead of giving them away. We donât do it out of malice. We do it for survival. Over time, that instinct shapes the systems we build. They bend toward imbalance, not because someone planned it, but because some people find the edges faster than others. And once they do, itâs not in our nature to let them go.This is why kids born in mansions go to better schools than kids born in trailers or projects. They get better doctors, better nutrition, safer neighborhoods, and more chances. A parent in Atherton, California, zip code 94027, median home about $7.9 million, can hire a private SAT tutor at two-hundred dollars an hour.Their kids earn top scores and reach elite schools.A kid in a single-wide works full-time while going to school full-time, if they go to school at all. And this isnât just one zip code in California. Itâs true across America. Books written three thousand years ago ask: Should we race horses in fields of rocks? Weâd cripple the horses. Should we plow the sea with a tractor? Weâd flood the engine and ruin the machine.The questions sound absurd. Yet the same book then asks why we build systems that claim to offer opportunity while stacking the odds against those who need it most.Itâs an ancient question: How do we achieve justice?The question is even more urgent today in America. Most nations were not founded to achieve justice. Nations rose to consolidate power, defend land, unify faiths, or escape colonial rule.But America, born at war, is different. We are unique in putting justice at the heart of our identity. Our Constitution says it plainly: âWe the People⌠in order to establish justice⌠do ordain and establish this Constitution (as the foundation) for the United States of America.âSimply put, America was founded on the idea that a kid in a trailer should have the same chance as a kid in a mansion. That idea is justice.America set out six national goals. The first, and most important, is justice. Justice is the end of government, the reason it exists.We canât claim to be conservatives, progressives, or even Americans if we ignore this truth. Justice isnât a side goal. Itâs the point.Will Capitalism Achieve Justice?Americaâs financial system is capitalist. It isnât good or bad. Itâs a tool. Capitalism drives growth, sparks innovation, and lifts our standard of living. It meets consumer demand better than any system weâve tried.The problems we saw earlier arenât capitalismâs fault. They happen when markets run without enough guidance to meet societyâs needs. Markets respond to incentives, not morality. People act in their self-interest. Government exists to protect peopleâs rights and property, and to ensure the rules serve everyone.Because markets do not guarantee justice, government must work within markets to set conditions that create justice. When the system ignores the worker, the worker gains nothing from the system.We work for our bread. If the financial system forgets those who sweat for that bread, we end up with no bread at all.Or, more accurately than no bread, we end up with half of American families with parents who go to work and still need handouts from their fellow American taxpayers, according to a US Department of Health and Human Services analysis from 2023. That is the reality of America today. Some tout the programs as federal programs that slash poverty. Thatâs a lie.If half of working American families need government support to survive, that isnât success. Itâs proof weâve failed to achieve our nationâs primary goal. But some celebrate this failure and keep the handouts coming.Itâs not the fault of those families. They are working families. But because we have failed to set conditions that allow American families to earn their bread, they cannot earn enough without government assistance.So⌠America was founded to establish justice, and on the freedom to pursue self-interest and protect property. Bring those two ideas together, and a simple truth follows:Every American, whether they grow up in a mansion or a trailer, must have a real chance to work, earn, and shape a life of their choosing. That is the promise of a just society.If It Were Easy to Achieve Justice, We Would Already Have Done SoRepublicans call for relying on the markets. But we will not achieve justice by relying only on the free market. Markets are great at many things: allocating resources, driving innovation, rewarding efficiency. But markets chase profit, not fairness. Justice requires intention and design. We must look beyond what markets reward, and instead focus on what an American family needs: food on the table and heat in the house through wages: real wages, not handouts.Some think theyâre kings, but we will not achieve justice through Executive Orders. Theyâre fleeting. They donât last. They donât demonstrate leadership. One president signs them in; the next one signs them out. Back and forth, election after election, no stability. We canât build justice on paperwork that disappears with the next election.Those who believe in government call for more rules. But we will not achieve justice through unfunded mandates. Mandates like raising the federal minimum wage sound righteous on paper. They promise higher wages, safer workplaces, better benefits. But government mandates arrive without resources to make them work. Small businesses run on tight margins. If we demand higher wages without helping businesses raise revenue, we ask them to defy economic gravity. When they canât, they fail. We must give small businesses tools to succeed, even as we lift workers.Socialists call to tax the wealthy. But we will not achieve justice through taxes. Taxes are necessary. They pay for roads, schools, defense, and the core functions of government. But if our strategy for justice starts and ends with taxing the wealthy, weâll wait forever. Even if we taxed billionaires out of existence, most of that money would vanish into bureaucracy long before reaching a struggling family. Government-funded bureaucracy spends money managing poverty, not ending it.Democrats call for social equality. But we will not achieve justice by dying on the hill of democracy. Justice does not mean equality. Some people will always earn more. Some will work longer hours, take greater risks, build businesses, invent tools, or manage others. And some will simply be luckier. Thatâs liberty. Not something to erase, but something to extend. We canât reduce the advantages of the successful. Instead, we must expand the conditions that created their success, so others can follow the same path.So⌠how will we achieve justice?Focus on the GoalWe will only achieve justice through consensus. We are a nation of competing interests. Inside one state, many might agree. But across coastal states, the Great Plains, the mountains, and the Mississippi River basin, needs differ.A policy that works in San Francisco might break a family business in rural Nebraska. A rule written for Wall Street might choke a rancher in Montana. One size does not fit fifty states.Justice isnât about uniformity; itâs about legitimacy. That means people across regions, backgrounds, and ideologies must see themselves in the outcome. We donât need to erase differences. We need to build common ground.And the place to begin is with agreement. Agreement on a goal. A simple, measurable idea most Americans still believe in: if you work, you should be able to provide for yourself and your family without government help.Itâs not a partisan idea. Itâs a promise of justice. Itâs the primary goal of America.To fulfill it, we need a system that rewards employers for paying livable wages, not one that punishes workers with dependency when the market fails them.So, how do we build that consensus? Business Taxes in America are Low. But Theyâre Not Low EnoughDemocrats say the answer to poverty is raising taxes to fund the government. They rage against cutting business taxes.Hereâs the truth: business taxes in America are low. But theyâre not low enough. Not low enough for businesses that actually help us achieve our national goals.We need real prosperity for working Americans. Not temporary patches, not programs that hide failure with handouts, and not policies that pile debt onto our children. If thatâs the goal, then we must build a system that rewards the right behavior.Consider the champion of Democratic leadership: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDRâs success didnât come from control. He aligned incentives for businesses and individuals alike. He showed how the right incentives could rally a nation. And in doing so, he set a persuasive precedent for incentivized wage policy today.Democratic leaders have forgotten his example.Today, we tax businesses that pay livable wages. We tax businesses that provide healthcare. We tax businesses whose employees donât need food stamps or Medicaid.Meanwhile, businesses paying poverty wages shift their labor costs onto taxpayers. Their workers survive only because we pay through programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. That cost isnât small.Means-tested welfare spending approaches one trillion dollars a year.So yes, business taxes in America are low. But theyâre not low enough for the right businesses.Using FDRâs example, we should flip the logic. If a business pays every worker a livable wage, it shouldnât pay any federal tax at all. Because that business is already doing its part. Itâs meeting the national goal: food on the table and heat in the house for every working American, without government assistance.If we want a system that works, we need to stop taxing virtue and start taxing failure.Thatâs what we mean when we say: business taxes in America are low.But theyâre not low enough.Wages in America are High. But Theyâre Not High EnoughRepublicans argue that the solution to poverty lies in the free market. They say workers must make themselves more valuable, and that government action only distorts the market and slows growth.But hereâs the truth: wages in America are high. Theyâre just not high enough for families to support themselves without help.We canât support the idea that every American must work for their bread, then defend a system where millions work full-time and still go hungry.We canât say we value dignity and then ask working Americans to rely on handouts. We canât say we believe in liberty and then block the conditions that allow a man or woman to earn enough to choose their own path. If labor has value, and it does, then all workers must be paid enough to reflect the cost of living in the country they support.Consider the champion of Republican leadership: President Abraham Lincoln. He understood we couldnât support this contradiction. Some claim Lincoln didnât lead the fight for labor rights. In fact, Lincoln led the fight for the right of enslaved workers to be paid at all.Lincoln didnât need a modern welfare state to tell him that sweat deserves bread. He believed every worker, free or born enslaved, should see a path to prosperity.Today, we subsidize businesses that underpay their workers. We tax businesses that take care of their workers. We spend nearly a trillion dollars each year dealing with the consequences of low wages, and then fight about whether social programs are bloated or broken.Weâve missed the point.The point isnât whether we should have social programs. The point is justice.Itâs whether our system reflects our stated values: that work has dignity, and every American who works should live without government aid.If we believe people should work and provide for their families, the system should reward that work with enough to live, without handouts.Wages in America are high. But theyâre not high enough for half of American families to thrive without help.With This Ring, I Thee WedâŚAmerica is a union of states and individuals who live in those states. Like any marriage or partnership, a union lasts only if itâs built on commitment. And commitment demands we focus on what matters most.We shouldnât fixate on whether business taxes are too high or too low.We shouldnât argue over whether certain jobs "deserve" a living wage.We shouldnât let debates over social programs distract us from deeper truths.These debates feel urgent. But they miss the point.America wasnât founded to preserve tax codes or pick economic winners. It was founded with a purpose, and that purpose was justice. Justice is our founding promise and enduring challenge. If we are to keep our union and remain Americans in more than name, justice must be our shared goal.So⌠back to the question that opened this conversation:How do we achieve justice?We clarify our purpose. We incentivize progress on both sides. We build consensus to move toward the goal, even if we must sacrifice the method.We wonât all agree on the path. But we can agree on the destination.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/aaron-paul-low/no-royal-road License code: QWMVWXP4G2V68YTU Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Jun 10, 2025
18 min
Americans Struggle Today with how Openly our Leaders Should Express Their FaithI had a buddy growing up. His name was Emmett.He wasnât a classmate. He was much older than I was. One of those men from the Greatest Generation who made time for a kid who asked too many questions.Few of us really know the stories of most of the people in our lives. And until I interviewed him for a Junior High grammar class assignment for Mrs. Adams, all I knew about Emmett was that he greeted me every Sunday in my small country church with a smile on his face.I knew some details before the interview. Emmett Donovan. Born in Monroe County, Missouri. Carpenter by trade. Long-time deacon at the First Baptist Church. He had a second refrigerator in his garage where his lifelong bride, Hazel, let him keep his fishing worms. I learned a lot about Emmett in that interview. He was the only kid from Monroe County to board a boat in England on June 4th, 1944, bound for Normandy to fight Nazi Germany. The weather across the channel was dicey. The operation delayed a day because of it, but there were too many soldiers to unload the boats. It would have taken too long. They had to stay an extra day on the boats, waiting. They played cards. Wrote letters. Tried to keep their spirits high. Emmett had married Hazel in 1937. She was on his mind, and he on hers.The weather cleared up enough to try the assault on June 6. At 2300 hours on June 5, paratroopers started taking off from their bases in England. At midnight, June 6, the Allied Fleet pushed off. Five hours later, dawn bled into gray.In the darkness just before dawn, the men had spent almost a full two days aboard the ships. The rough English Channel tossed the vessels to and fro. Many men were ill from seasickness and nerves. They knew they would not all survive and return home to America.Sunrise in Normandy, France, came at 5:46 AM local time that day. From the boats, the men could see a faint outline of where they were going, but no clear view of what awaited them. Landing craft carrying the first wave launched from the larger vessels about seven to 12 miles offshore. From aboard these landing craft, the faint outline of the coast was visible in the near dawn light. But by 0530, the Germans absolutely knew something big was happening. Just after midnight, over 13,000 US and British paratroopers had dropped behind enemy lines. German units in Normandy were engaging paratroopers. German radios reported landings and firefights throughout the night.Allied bombers, fighters, and gliders filled the night sky, lit by the flicker of explosions below.Now, in the early morning, German radar and lookouts tracked an armada of ships. German defenses saw glimpses of the landing craft through the rough sea chop and the fog. Not every landing craft made it to shore.The sea was violent that morning. The swells were high. Beach obstacles and mines sank some boats. Artillery hit others before they ever touched sand. Engines failed. Men jumped into water over their heads and drowned under the weight of their packs. All under heavy German fire.The obstacles and fires damaged, misguided, or destroyed hundreds of landing craft before they could reach their designated beaches. Omaha was the worst of the five landing zones. Nearly half the tanks sank before firing a shot. Some landing craft circled for too long, disoriented in smoke and chaos, and ran aground.Emmettâs boat made it. But that didnât mean it went well.He jumped into the water, rifle held high, and slowly waded in heavy water toward the beach. On his way toward his objective, Emmett stopped to provide first aid to a fallen soldier on the beach. It was bad. He told me he tried to help the soldier put himself back together. But with bullets cracking around him, there wasnât much he could do. Allied forces paid a high price. Two-thirds of some initial landing units suffered casualties. Company A of the 116th Infantry Regiment, part of the 29th Division, hit Omaha Beach first. In just the first hour, 96% became casualties, a grim testament to the brutality of that morning.Emmett would achieve his objective. Behind him, wave after wave of Allied troops poured onto the beaches, clawing out a foothold, marking the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.As a reward, Emmett had the pleasure of going on to fight at the Battle of the Bulge. To the credit of many, America would help defeat fascism and liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. After the war, Emmett returned home to his small country town. He and Hazel would stay married for 61 years. They had two sons and three grandchildren. She passed away when he was 85. He would survive her for 12 more years.Many years later, as a young boy, I only saw him act with grace and dignity. He was always quick with a smile and a handshake.He didnât talk about politics or pride. Had you not known and asked about his experience, he would not have told you. You would have assumed he had lived his entire life in a little Missouri town.He had a quiet faith. He was a proud member of his congregation, but he didnât talk much about it.Iâve never forgotten that interview. I was just a Junior High student. And like most kids, I didnât ask enough of the right questions. He remembered the beach vividly. The chaos. The noise. The man he tried to help.But if I could sit with Emmett again today, Iâd ask about the hours before that.What was he thinking about on the boat? Did he write a letter to Hazel? Did he stare out at the gray horizon, wondering if he would see her again? Iâll never know. But knowing him later in life, I believe he carried something more than fear. Duty, maybe. The quiet strength of his generation.I believe a strong component of his grace and dignity came from his faith. Emmett and Hazel werenât the only Americans praying that day.President Franklin D. Rooseveltâs June 6th Address1944 was a time of hand-wringing across the country. We worried about our nationâs sons and daughters fighting in Europe and the Pacific. When people worry, they turn to the Almighty. When they turn to the Almighty, they pray. President Franklin D. Rooseveltâs calendar on June 6, 1944, detailed only one appointment. Invasion Day. The FDR Library says that âDuring the tense early hours of the invasion, FDR monitored reports from the front. That evening, he delivered a statement to the American people. It took the form of a prayer, which he read on national radio.âFDR sought to offer the nation strength with a heartfelt address.âMy fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.Thy will be done, Almighty God.Amen.âNow we are ready for our question. If a national leader leads a prayer event, is that a violation of the First Amendmentâs Establishment Clause? Specifically, the part that says the government canât establish a religion?Thomas Jefferson: A Case Study in the Tension Between Personal Faith and Public OfficeThomas Jefferson was a deist. A deist believes in a single creator who made the universe, set natural laws in motion, and then does not interfere with those laws through miracles or revelations.He saw a providential Creator behind human rights but viewed organized religion and government-issued prayer as matters best kept separate.Jefferson believed Biblical miracles were myths. He doubted the power of prayer. At the same time, he recognized humans are obliged to worship God, and he prayed publicly.He helped draft a 1774 âday of fasting and prayerâ to protest the British Intolerable Acts, then later dismissed the event and claimed that the resolution had been cooked up for political effect. As governor of Virginia, he passed along Congressâs request for another prayer day. But as president, he flat-out refused to issue one. In an 1808 letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, he said any ârecommendationâ from the chief executive would still carry pressure and that âit is not for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises.â Then, in his Second Inaugural address, President Jefferson saidâŚâI shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are ⌠and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications.â No contradiction there, in his eyes. A president may pray aloud as a private believer, and at the same time refuse to command government power to stage a national fast.Jeffersonâs view became the foundation for religion in America. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. First, freedom of religion. A president, or any other American, may kneel in a church, chant in a temple, light a menorah, face Mecca, or follow any creed they choose. Second, freedom from religion. We may skip worship altogether. No tax supports a church. A courthouse may never force a prayer. Citizenship never hinges on belief.That distinction, personal expression versus official endorsement, became the core of our modern Establishment Clause test. It is why FDRâs D-Day prayer passed muster, and why a leader may still pray in public. The invitation must be voluntary.At the same time, FDRâs address offended some Americans who believed we had no role in World War II. Isolationists urged that we ought to stay out of the war and continued to resent US intervention even after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Pacifists lamented the tragedy of humanity and urged prayer for deliverance instead of military action. Activists objected to the prayer. When Congress later tried to add the D-Day prayer to the WWII Memorial, the ACLU and an interfaith/atheist coalition wrote that the plaque demonstrated a lack of respect for religious diversity that would detract from national unity.SoâŚwhatâs it going to be?Lead with Grace and DignityEmmett understood better than most of us ever will that grace and dignity must lead us.The separation of church and state isnât about eliminating faith from public life. Faith cannot be government coercion. It is personal conviction.Emmett, like Jefferson and Roosevelt, demonstrated that strength doesnât impose itself. It reveals itself quietly, in dignity, humility, and quiet confidence.When a national leader prays voluntarily in public, rather than immediately claiming a First Amendment violation, we should respond as Emmett would, with grace and dignity.In truth, Emmettâs quiet faith, Rooseveltâs prayer, and Jeffersonâs wall arenât about religion at all.Our greatest responsibility isnât to defend what we believe or correct what we think is wrong in others. Greatness never comes from insisting others share our beliefs. Greatness comes from humility, courageously living our beliefs ourselves.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/almost-thereLicense code: SUCWYITYH7YCVIYU Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Jun 3, 2025
22 min
June 21, 1788. NewâŻHampshire becomes the ninth state to ratify the Constitution, activating the new government and binding America to a single compact.Our Republic is dedicated to the premise that we are created equal. We fought a war to escape a king. We ratified a Constitution to rule ourselves. The Constitution is a contract between states. We can sum up the foundational basis of that contract in one wordâŚTrust.Each sovereign state pledges to certify its vote and accept the certifications of every other. If that handshake fails, the Union fails.Trust demands proof. How do we make every voter, every state official, and every member of Congress accept the tally as fact?January 6, 2021Tear gas. Pepper spray. Flashbang grenades. The cameras didnât miss a moment. Two thousand protesters from nearly every state turned into rioters. The floor of the House emptied. Staff members grabbed the mahogany boxes that, since 1877, have held the certified electoral votes of each state. They ran.The count stopped.Photojournalist and Marine veteran Chris Jones at the Capitol Building that day observed that âThe looks in peopleâs eyes seemed religious to me, not political. So it was important for me to use that iconography in my pictures, to talk about how people do things for their faith that they wouldnât do for their politics.âFor most Americans, the counting of votes had always been a formality. It wasnât exciting. It wasnât dramatic. It was supposed to be boring. Thatâs the point of a stable system.But not on January 6.The nation watched in horror as the institution of the American democratic Republic lost trust in itself. That day, the count became the crisis. Some stormed the Capitol because they believed the tally was rigged. Others defended the building because they believed the tally was sacred. While the crisis was unfolding, a precious few, but enough, stood firm and did their duty to preserve the Republic. We owe them a debt of gratitude.No matter our opinion of the facts of the legitimacy of the vote or the cause for the distrust. Either way, something broke. The numbers no longer spoke with authority. Many Americans believed they no longer trusted the count.And the problem persists. In 2024, the FBI warned that foreign actors continue trying to undermine Americansâ trust in elections through disinformation. The fracture isnât healing. Itâs spreading.Somewhere along the way, the foundation of the institution cracked. January 6 wasnât just an isolated moment of chaos. It revealed something deeper. Something dangerous. Trust in the vote itself fractured. That fracture didnât heal when the building cleared. Itâs a live threat today. Without trust, our elections lose their meaning. Without trust, our Republic crumbles from the inside.Trust demands proof.We Are One Nation Because We Are a Union of StatesThe Constitution isnât a rulebook. Itâs a contract between states that each state agreed to sign. As a part of the contract, New York agreed it would accept a certified count from Alabama. Wyoming agreed to trust the vote in California. Ohio agreed they canât override Georgiaâs tally just because it doesnât like the outcome.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of this Constitutional contract outlines that each state decides how to choose its electors, based on whatever method its legislature sets. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 identifies that states and not a federal authority govern the times, places, and manner of their elections. In short, states decide their vote. Not the federal government. Congress does retain some authority to intervene and standardize practices to ensure consistency and protect voting rights, but only because the states amended the contract to give Congress this authority. Every state later agreed voting rights could not be denied by race (15th Amendment), sex (19th), failure to pay poll taxes (24th), or age over eighteen (26th).Bottom line. Each state runs its own election. Thatâs not a flaw. Thatâs the design. When we ratified the Constitution, we had just fought with everything we had to win a war against a king, and we werenât about to give the keys to another one.We decided that no one person in Washington, or even a group of people, would manage elections. We gave that power to the states. But inherent in that power is responsibility. States agreed that once a result was certified, the rest of the country would accept it.We didnât personally sign the Constitution, but every Election Day, we delegate our voice to whoever wins, and we live with their choices. Thatâs representative governance. Institutions endure because each generation inherits them unless it chooses to dismantle them. Without that carry-forward consent, fifty states would drift apart and the Union would fracture. Trust in the contract, then, is necessary for national survival.When one state casts doubt on anotherâs election, or when Congress or the President threaten to reject results a state has already decided, the entire structure starts to crack.The states donât all have to agree. We never could anyway. But we have to trust each other and accept the vote from other states. Without trust, the contract collapses.Trust demands proof. How would we prove the results of elections?The Technology TestWith mass elections, we face two different vulnerabilities. Both are technology-based. There is paper, and there are machines.Some call to rely on paper ballots. But paper ballots, counted by hand or scanned, carry a human burden. Humans make lots of mistakes. We are slow. We scale poorly. We are prone to fatigue, bias, and clerical error. The weakness of paper ballots isnât in the vote itself; itâs in the count. Large-scale studies show hand counts differ half a percent to two percent from audited totals. Some one-off experiments collapse entirely. Nye County, Nevadaâs 2022 âfull hand countâ logged a discrepancy of nearly twenty-five percent between manual and machine tallies before the state shut it down. Even the low end, half a percent, would swing 25,000 votes in a five-million-ballot state. That gap alone can decide a close race. In the 2020 election, President Biden won the vote in the state of Georgia by 12,000 votes. Arizona, 10,000. Wisconsin, 20,000. Trust demands proof.The more complex the recount, the more faith we have to place in people. Humans perform poorly on repetitive, tedious tasks.So, if we want to maintain trust, a human count isnât proof.Digital machines offer a different problem. They are fast. They scale beautifully. But their weakness is perception. They arenât transparent. If theyâre connected to the internet even once, they open the door to doubt. A single confirmed breach, or even a plausible story of one, is enough to rupture confidence. If people believe the machines can be tampered with, they no longer trust the count. A machine count where we canât see behind the curtain isnât proof.So we have a tradeoff. Paper risks accuracy and timeliness. Machines risk legitimacy.Both fail the test because they canât answer the central question.Can they prove the result?Maybe thereâs another way. Trust demands proof. To fix trust, we need a new standard. One that we already apply when the stakes are life or death.I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of WorldsFew systems achieve the high standard of societal trust. These systems have zeroâfailure tolerance because the stakes are civilizationâlevel.Letâs think about how we certify weapons platforms that carry nuclear warheads. Each platform must achieve nuclear certification before it becomes active.Nuclear certification isnât a casual process. We subject those systems to a standard of review that assumes one tiny mistake could end civilization. When the cost of failure is existential, that system must meet a no-failure bar. Every bolt, every microchip, every software patch. The standard is a transparent reliability rate of fewer than one error in one billion events. The 1-in-1-billion benchmark is not a metaphor; it comes straight from official federal nuclear safety guidelines. DOE Order 452.1F and DOD guidance require that the probability of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonation remain below this threshold.If our election system counted 160 million votes with the same reliability, it would permit fewer than one single miscounted ballot. Practically zero. âGood-enoughâ paper or opaque machines fall short. That is the cost of keeping legitimacy non-negotiable.The nuclear certification process is slow, rigorous, and unforgiving. Why? Because when the stakes are existential, âgood enoughâ isnât enough.An election collapse threatens the Republic with equal finality. Once voters stop trusting the count, they stop trusting the system. At that point, weâre not debating the process. Just like we did on January 6, 2021, we watch in horror as some challenge the continuity of the Republic itself.In short, instead of choosing between paper ballots and machines that count behind a curtain, we should hold vote-counting systems to the same standard we use for nuclear weapons platforms. A nuclear weapons-grade election system means air-gapped hardware thatâs never connected to the internet. No remote access, ever. Open-source, frozen code base. An immutable paper backup for every ballot. A public, mathematically verifiable audit trail. Continuous independent surveillance and testing. Tamper detection alerts. A public record briefing to each stateâs election body detailing every abnormal event. Full transparency.Engineers test, states see the data, and voters can download the report. A continuous loop from opaque process to transparent, verifiable record. No more challenging the legitimacy of elections. No more threatening the legitimacy of the Republic. Results everyone can see and prove. Trust demands proof. If we already use this zero-failure standard to protect lives, shouldnât we use it to protect our democratic Republic itself?If the Republic lives on trust, shouldnât trust deserve our decisive effort?Yes, a zero-failure system is expensive. But the question is bigger than price.We already spend fortunes to protect the Republicâs borders. We should spend what it takes to protect the Republicâs integrity.Preserving the Union is our first national goal. That Union lives or dies on public faith in the count. Lose that faith, and no army can save us. Union is not the absence of conflict; it is the shared burden of conflict. We win and lose together, and we accept the result together.Union depends on trust. Without trust, we risk permanent fracture.Trust demands proof.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/morningsLicense code: OFHOYTZTU6ZNPVES Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
May 20, 2025
16 min
We live in an age where the oath of office often feels like a formality. But President George Washington didnât see it that way.Why not?He was an honorable man. He led decisive action that saved a ragtag set of colonies and their fledgling fighters. He helped forge an America born at war, and then spent his life, with others, shaping it into a lasting union.We asked him to be king. He refused. Instead of seizing power, he handed it back to the people. He is one of only four presidents honored with a monument on the National Mall.Washington saw the presidency not as an achievement, but as a duty. The office wasnât his. It was the nationâs. He was only a temporary occupant.His first term was a dry run of an experimental system. At his second inauguration, he delivered the shortest speech in presidential history: 135 words. Four sentences. In it, he asked to be judged not by success or failure, but by fidelity to the Constitution.He never saw the oath as ceremony. He saw it as a public binding. An act of submission to law, to philosophy, to something greater than himself. He swore to uphold that ideal above riches, safety, or power. He made himself small beneath the American ideal.The oath directs the president to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Then it adds a quiet line: to the best of my Ability.That phrase carries humility. In the hands of someone like Washington, it becomes a unifying voice. But not everyone is like Washington.In lesser hands, âto the best of my abilityâ promises nothing. It demands no wisdom. No courage. No character. The Constitution doesnât define âAbility.â It sets no standard, offers no test. It doesnât ask whether a president understands liberty, grasps law, or even knows the six goals of the preamble. It only asks that he act according to his ability.So what happens when a man with no moral compass takes the oath?What if his ability begins and ends with self-interest? What if we choose someone whose ability is shaped not by humility, but by ambition, ignorance, or vanity?He can still raise his hand. He can still say the words. He can still claim he did his best.And the Constitution wonât stop him.It gives the people the power to choose. And once we choose, it assumes we chose well. It assumes we chose someone who understands what it means to defend a republic.Which brings us back to the same words every president has spoken since Washington.A Constitutional Clause Built on Subjectivity Found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, the Constitution outlines that before they enter the office, the President shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.The oath is a mirror. It reflects back the character of the person who takes it. Most constitutional clauses set standards. Common verbiage includes âshall,â âmust,â and âonly with advice and consent.â Not the oath. It doesnât bind the office to a standard of excellence; it binds it to the standard of the person. It says the president will act to the best of their ability, which turns the focus inward. Itâs not a promise of outcome. The oath is filtered through the personâs internal fidelity. It limits the obligation by what the individual president is capable of and not what the Constitution demands. We could ask why the framers didnât just say the president must uphold the Constitution or shall ensure its defense. Perhaps they feared the tyranny of perfection just as much as the tyranny of incompetence.The framers wrote before modern party systems, before mass media, and before the idea that one person might use the presidency as a personal brand empire. They assumed men of honor, or at least men with a reputation to protect. For the framers, âabilityâ was a nod to human limits, not human depravity.They assumed, wrongly, that the people would never elect someone without basic ability and a high ethical standard. Of course, there is the law, and the law is measurable. Not all ethical violations break the law. But having a high ethical standard is not a requirement to be president. We have several examples of presidents with an ethical standard many would consider deficient.Letâs look at three moments where the oath bent under pressure.James Buchanan â The Man Who Watched the Union BurnImagine this. Itâs 1857. The country is fracturing. A sharp economic downturn, the Panic of 1857, has shaken public confidence and threatens the livelihoods of thousands. Slavery has already turned Congress into a battlefield. The KansasâNebraska Act has opened the door to âpopular sovereignty,â allowing settlers in new territories to vote on whether to allow slavery.Pro-slavery and anti-slavery protestors flood into Kansas. Violence breaks out; the territory earns a new name: Bleeding Kansas.Then, the Supreme Court delivers the Dred Scott decision. The Court declares that Black Americans can never be citizens. That the federal government has no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. That the Constitution itself offers no protection to the enslaved.In the middle of this firestorm, James Buchanan takes the oath of office. The country needed leadership more than ever.He swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And then he proceeds to do ... almost nothing.Buchanan personally believed slavery was immoral. But he believed even more deeply that the Constitution gave him no power to act. He saw himself not as a leader, but as a caretaker of a document, and the document, he claimed, left no room for federal intervention.He was a staunch statesâ rights advocate. When Southern states began seceding, South Carolina first in December 1860, Buchanan declared secession illegal ... but also claimed the federal government had no authority to stop it.His cabinet fell into chaos. Several members were Southern sympathizers. One of them, Secretary of War John Floyd, secretly funneled arms to the South. Buchanan, weak and indecisive, let it happen.So the Union dissolved while the President, bound by his narrow reading of the Constitution, stood aside.He felt he had done his duty. He said, âI feel that my duty has been faithfully, though it may be imperfectly, performed, and, whatever the result may be, I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country.âHe also recognized his leadership had failed. In a moment of despair, as the nation cracked beneath his inaction, Buchanan reportedly declared, âI am the last President of the United States!âItâs one of the most devastating examples of a president interpreting âto the best of my Abilityâ as a command to do nothing at all.And it left Lincoln to inherit a war that may have been prevented if the man before him had seen the oath not just as a legal clause, but as a moral charge.Andrew Johnson â The President Who Fought ReconstructionIn April 1865, the war was ending. The Union had held. And then, at Fordâs Theatre, John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln. Into that moment stepped Andrew Johnson, a Democrat from Tennessee, loyal to the Union but hostile to the idea of racial equality.He took the same oath Lincoln had taken: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.But Johnson didnât use that oath to finish Lincolnâs work. He abused his veto power to preserve white supremacy.He vetoed civil rights legislation. He openly opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. He told white Southerners they could regain power quickly and face few consequences. As if the war had changed nothing, as if emancipation had never happened.He said, âIt is the province of the Executive to see that the will of the people is carried out in the rehabilitation of the rebellious States, once more under the authority as well as the protection of the Union.âAnd when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first law to declare all persons born in the United States as citizens, he vetoed that, too.Congress overrode him. Twice. It was the first time major legislation passed despite a presidential veto.Johnson argued he was defending the Constitution. That federal enforcement of civil rights was an overreach. That states had the right to decide, even if they used that right to deny freedom.He didnât see Reconstruction as a duty. He saw it as an intrusion.And so, under the cover of âto the best of my ability,â Johnson tried to undo the meaning of Union victory.He became the first president in American history to be impeached. He survived conviction by one vote. But his legacy was clear: he used the oath not to heal the country, but to hold it back.Richard Nixon â The President Who Tried to Redefine the LawRichard Nixon took the oath in 1969. Then again in 1973. He swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.What followed was one of the most profound breaches of public trust in American history.Nixon authorized illegal wiretaps. He used the CIA to block FBI investigations. He compiled enemy lists, with the goal to âuse the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.â He used the IRS to target his political opponents. And then, when the Watergate break-in exposed the rot, he tried to cover it all up.He didnât deny that he broke ethical norms. He didnât even deny the facts. What he denied was that he could be held accountable.He told interviewer David Frost in 1977:âWhen the president does it, that means it is not illegal.âPresident Richard Nixonâs name has an asterisk next to it in history books as the biggest crook to ever hold the office. The man who took an oath to defend the Constitution believed he was functionally above it.He saw the office not as a duty to the people, but as a shield against them. He interpreted âto the best of my abilityâ not as an internal check, but as a blank check. Nixon wasnât after money or fame; he hungered for power, control, and a place among historyâs greats. Nixon resigned before the House could impeach him. In his farewell speech, Nixon said plainly,âTo leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body.âBut he left. In the end, even Nixon understood that while the oath might be vague, the consequences of breaking it could still find you.Fast Forward to Last WeekIn an NBC News interview, Kristen Welker asked President Trump if heâs duty-bound to uphold the Constitution.He answered, âI donât know⌠I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.âThat answer says a lot. The oath doesnât bind the lawyers. It binds the President. And yet, instead of owning that responsibility, he passed it off.Some lawmakers responded with outrage. But while they bicker, real people are out here hurting.We should be focused on our purpose. The Constitution gives us one: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.Justice is the first obligation. America doesnât exist to serve the strong. It exists to protect the weak. That means every family has heat in the house and food on the table. No new burden on taxpayers. No ballooning bureaucracy. Just results. And that takes consensus. Political theater kills consensus.To any president who says they âdonât knowâ if theyâre bound to defend the Constitution, we shouldnât pretend. You donât need to lie. We can just say it plainly. The office exists to serve the Constitution. And you are serving it to the best of your ability.But when you fail to meet even the most basic obligations, that reveals your ability. The Fifth Amendment protects all persons, including citizens, immigrants, and anyone under US jurisdiction, from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If we use taxpayer dollars to process, detain, or deport someone, they are under our jurisdiction. They are owed due process.History gives us examples of presidents who fell short. They have names that include Buchanan, Johnson, and Nixon. We remember none as great.Washington made himself small beneath the Constitution. We ask no less from anyone who follows.This isnât a constitutional crisis. The system the framers built is strong. The Constitution gives the structure. But the oath still matters. The success of the presidency still depends on the person who takes the oath, and how they choose to fulfill it.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/studiokolomna/chamber-timeLicense code: IC3A9HDXIT3FAWUV Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
May 13, 2025
16 min
Tariffs will certainly raise prices at home. Thatâs their purpose. Tariffs are taxes. When a product crosses the border, a tariff adds a fee. The item is the same, the seller worked no harder, but government tilted the scale to favor domestic goods.So hereâs the real question. If the state forces you to pay more than the market demands, and the extra money flows to a private pocket and not to a public good, is that a government theft of your property? Itâs not as black and white as saying yes.Trade Walls and the Great Collapse(Background: somber string swell. An overture to a tragedy.)In 1929 America walked to the cliffâs edge. On the day historians now call Black Monday, October 28, the stock market plunged 13 percent. The next day, it fell another 12. And the slide continued.By midâNovember the market had surrendered half its value. But this was no abstract loss for wealthy speculators. Credit froze. Banks failed. Capital vanished.The drop tore through real peopleâs lives. Factories emptied, foreclosures surged, crime climbed. City tax bases collapsed; boarded windows lined dark streets. In manufacturing-heavy cities like Detroit and Chicago, unemployment reached 40 percent. On the plains, farmers who had expanded acreage during WorldâŻWarâŻI and loaded themselves with debt to feed Allied armies now could not sell grain for the cost of planting it. Some burned corn for heat because coal was more expensive. Families lived in makeshift shacks made from scrap wood and tar paper.The shock ran so deep it took twenty-five years and twenty-five days, an entire generation, to recover. Only on November 23, 1954, did the Dow Jones Industrial Average climb back to its 1929 peak.It took the Second World War, an immense postâwar industrial boom, and the rise of a broad middle class to erase the wounds opened in those brutal weeks of 1929.âŚBut in 1929, the nation was still reeling.Into that chaos stepped two well-meaning legislators: Senator Reed Smoot of Utah and Congressman Willis Hawley of Oregon. Smoot chaired the Senate Finance Committee. Hawley led the House Ways and Means Committee. Both were Republicans. Their fix looked simple on paper. They intended to raise tariffs and shield American jobs, especially in struggling farms and factories.Tariffs were nothing new. All through the nineteenth century they filled the federal treasury and sheltered northern mills before an income tax even existed.âŻBut by 1930, the economy was global. Exports mattered. Warâdebtor Europe owed the United States billions, and America needed foreign buyers to keep those payments flowing. The system was fragile, stretched by WorldâŻWarâŻI debts and sliding prices.This fragile system was about to get kicked in the teeth.Smoot and Hawley introduced their bill in 1929 as a narrow farm measure. Washington lobbyists smelled opportunity. Amendments poured in. Every senator, every representative, tacked on protection for homeâstate industries. The schedule exploded.Tariffs climbed on more than twentyâŻthousand imports, including shoes, lumber, eggs, cement, even musical instruments.[Sound cue: typewriters clacking rapidly, fading into thunder]Over a thousand economists signed a letter urging President Hoover to veto it. They warned it would spark retaliation and crush trade. Hoover, boxed in by party pressure and a panicked electorate, signed the SmootâHawley Tariff Act into law on June 17, 1930.âŚThatâs when the backlash began.Canada struck first, taxing American wheat and produce. Europe followed. Germany, France, Britain. The global economy was already fragile. Retaliation sent it into a spiral. Within a few years world trade fell more than sixty percent. American exports were cut in half. Factories shut their gates. Jobs vanished. Farms that hoped for relief found only isolation.[Background: wind blowing through an empty field]Unemployment soared past 20 percent. Dust storms rolled across the heartland.The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act didnât cause the Great Depression. But it poured gasoline on the fire. It bruised American credibility and hardened global resentment. The lesson came fast and harsh: Economic nationalism backfires in a global crisis. Economists still cite the Smoot-Hawley Act as proof that fear-driven policy can deepen disasterâŻ.Voters felt the pain. In the 1930 midterms, Republicans lost both chambers of Congress by huge margins. Smoot and Hawley were âshown the door.âEven progressive Republicans who had campaigned for Hoover switched sides and backed Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. By his inauguration on March 4, 1933, banks were closing, unemployment hovered near twenty-five percent, and prices and productivity had fallen to one-third of their 1929 levelâŻ.We now know FDR would lead the country through the Great Depression and to victory in World War II. He would go on to win four consecutive presidential campaigns. It would take 20 years and a war hero named Dwight Eisenhower for the Republicans to win the presidency again.Decades later, economists point to the Smoot-Hawley Act as the moment protectionism went too far.What are Tariffs?A tariff is a border tax. Each time a shipment enters the United States, from raw materials to cars, the US importer pays the tariff before the goods clear customs. That cost travels through the supply chain until it lands in the shopperâs cart.The Constitution calls such a fee an impost and grants only Congress the power to levy it.In the early Republic, tariffs kept the government running. We only had to pay for a small army, a handful of diplomats, and debt payments. Customs duties and land sales covered it all. No income tax. No redistribution. In that setting, tariffs were neutral revenue.Today, they play a different role. Lawmakers use them to shield selected industries. The higher price never builds a road or pays the debt. It settles in the profit line of the firm that now faces less competition.As a buyer, you pay more, without consent, to subsidize a private interest. The protected company can hold prices high and still move product. That extra margin is private gain created by government design.So the question stands.If the state makes you pay more than the market asks and the surplus flows to a private pocket, are tariffs a government theft of your property?Are Tariffs a Government Theft of Your Property?Letâs look first through the lens of the individual and their natural rights. The decisive purpose of governance is to preserve your life, liberty, and estate. Life is your own being. It includes every decision that keeps you alive and whole. By nature, you own yourself. Liberty is the right to choose a path that leads to fulfillment. When we chart our own course, we observe, plan, and act. Our choices bring results, good or bad, and from those results we develop skill, talent, and personal responsibility. What we do matters, but who we become by doing it matters more. Estate is the concrete result of that pursuit of happiness. It is your paycheck, the land you work, your tools, the food on your table, the heat in your house. It is everything earned by your labor and freely exchanged with others.We consent to governance so our representatives can preserve those rights. When government collects taxes to keep the peace, enforce contracts, and build institutions that enable Americans born in trailers and penthouses alike to be great, it strengthens the pillars. When it shifts wealth from many citizens to a favored few, it weakens them.The Constitution reflects that balance. Article I empowers Congress to collect tariffs to promote the general welfare. But that power has limits. The spending must serve everyone, not private lobbies. When public money settles in private hands, it no longer serves the people. It serves the powerful.America was built to protect the weak, not exalt the wellâconnected. We owe allegiance to no king, no oligarch.And there is a second lens: not just citizen, but creator, builder, innovator, entrepreneur; anyone who brings something new into the world through mind and labor.The Creatorâs RightsNow letâs switch lenses and see tariffs through the eyes of the creator, the builder, the entrepreneur.Creators share the same trinity of rights every person holds: life to think and act, liberty to choose a path, and estate to keep the value they earn. A competitive market is simply those rights at work.This market sets conditions supporting freedom from coercion, not shelter from stronger rivals. Every creator is an end in themselves. A business must win customers by persuasion, never by force. The moment a company runs to government for a tariff that inflates a rivalâs cost, competition ends and confiscation begins, without the buyerâs consent. A tariff used in this way becomes legal plunder. It lifts money from many pockets and drops it into one. Real competition is buyers and sellers meeting on equal terms, each free to walk away. The stateâs duty is to protect that freedom, not tilt it.The Constitution backs this logic. The Commerce Clause lets Congress regulate trade âto promote the general welfare.â That mandate directs open, dependable markets. Congress may clear barriers, chase fraud, and keep trade lanes clear. It may not enrich one faction by taxing all others. When tariffs privilege a lobby, they break the spirit of fair play.A competitive market environment rests on three conditions: First, rule of law that protects contracts and property. Second, a neutral government that blocks entry to no one and grants no special favors. Third, open information that lets every buyer and seller judge value for themselves.When we establish and maintain this business environment, the rights of the producer and the rights of the consumer align, because every exchange is voluntary. Businesses have a right to a fair and competitive arena. This means an arena free of special privilege, not free of challenge.Viewed this way, broad tariffs distort consent, misalign incentives, and reward political access over earned value.But thatâs not the end of the debate.There are serious arguments in favor of tariffs. They can defend national security, answer foreign coercion, or shelter a fragile industry long enough to stand on its own. Those claims deserve a closer look.The Strategic Case For TariffsTariffs are strategically compelling in three areas.First, tariffs are needed for national security. Some items are too important to depend on other countries. America needs to be able to build each and every piece of an Abrams tank or a Strike Eagle fighter inside the country. We need the inherent capability to make every part, from computer chips for fighter jets to rare earth magnets for guided missiles. If we canât build these items in-house, and a war or embargo cuts the supply, we wonât be able to achieve national objectives. A tariff can push factories to build those parts here at home. Yes, it adds cost, but it pays for itself in risk. Second, trade only works when both countries play by the rules. If another country blocks our products, forces us to hand over technology, or pays heavy subsidies to its own firms, our businesses canât compete. A targeted tariff can be a bargaining chip. Third, young industries. Some businesses start with big upfront costs and need time to grow strong. Early American steel, Japanese cars in the 1950s, and South Korean shipyards in the 1970s all asked for short-duration tariffs while they scaled up. The need to protect these infant capabilities was clear, so they could compete on their own later.But all three of these examples share a commonality. Tariffs must serve everyone, not just one company. Except for national security, they must be temporary and end once the goal is reached. And they must pass scrutiny. Tariffs must end if industry prices stay artificially high or innovation stalls.In short, strategic tariffs can be justified if they are narrow, temporary, and transparent. Broad tariffs rarely meet that test.So, are tariffs a government theft of your property?Tariffs lift prices at home. That is their purpose. They are taxes paid each time an import crosses the border.If Congress paired those duties with equal tax cuts for ordinary families, tariffs might serve American families. That rarely happens. Relief flows upward instead. Right now, Congress looks to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which âskews in favor of wealthy Americans, who would see more tax relief not only in the dollar amount but as a percentage of income.â Without offset, a tariff is simply a hidden tax. Working families, not wealthy ones, pay the price.Broad, permanent duties threaten your estate. They drain wealth from many and deliver it to a privileged few. Prices climb, choice shrinks, competition thins, all without consumer consent.Still, not every tariff is unjust. A measure that truly guards national security or corrects foreign coercion can be justified, if it stays targeted, temporary, and transparent. It must protect the whole country, not just favored producers.The real question is motive. Does a tariff serve the nation or the wealthy lobby?In the end, every tariff faces a single test. The Constitution outlines six national goals: union, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty. Do these tariffs move us closer to even one?If a tariff is targeted, temporary, and transparent, the answer can be yes. Tariffs that genuinely protect national security, level the playing field against foreign coercion, or briefly shelter critical new industries can enhance our union, strengthen justice, and provide for the common welfare.But broad, permanent tariffs that enrich a handful of companies at everyone elseâs expense do the opposite. They weaken economic justice, disrupt domestic tranquility, and erode personal liberty. They tilt America away from fairness and toward privilege. They distort incentives, drive up costs, and quietly confiscate property.So, the answer to our question depends entirely on intent and design. Good tariffs serve clear national goals that benefit everyone, while bad tariffs serve only private interests.If we canât clearly explain how a tariff moves America closer to at least one of our goals, then we already have our answer.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/hele/the-wolf-the-bearLicense code: MZQHKZONYCHE3JS3 Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
May 6, 2025
18 min
From the Kalka River to Lake Peipus: Russia Turns East(Begin with ambient medieval Eastern European music, fading under narration)After the Rusâ catastrophic defeat at the Kalka River in 1223, and especially following the full-scale Mongol conquest in the campaigns of the late 1230s, Mongol dominance reshaped the eastern and western reaches of the Russian world.In the 13th century, Kyiv, now the capital of Ukraine, was still the spiritual and cultural heart of a region known as Kievan Rus. It wasnât Russian in the modern sense. Its roots were Viking. The Norsemen who arrived in Eastern Europe, mostly of Swedish origin, were Varangians, also referred to as the Rus. They settled among the Slavic tribes, built river trade routes, and founded ruling dynasties. Over the generations, their Norse identity blended into the local Slavic world.Kievan Rus was a loose federation of Slavic principalities spanning what we now know as Ukraine, Belarus, and the western edge of Russia. Rivers made its borders. Trade flowed south along the Dnieper to the Black Sea and north along the Volkhov and Northern Dvina toward the Baltic and the White Sea. The Dnieper linked Kyiv to Byzantium and the wider Mediterranean, while the collective waterways connected the forest to the steppe and bound distant peoples into a shared political and spiritual world.(A quick note: If youâre listening to the audio-only version, the written piece available on Substack includes a detailed map. Kievan Rus stretched from the White Sea, above the Arctic Circle, to the Black Sea, just north of present-day Turkey.) By this point, Kyivâs political power had faded from its earlier role as the capital of Kievan Rus, but the city still carried immense symbolic weight.That changed in December 1240. Batu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, led the Mongol army that laid siege to the city. After a brutal assault, they slaughtered its people and left the city in ruins. Many towns across Rus met the same fate. Some never fully recovered. Others vanished entirely.In the years that followed, the world of Viking Rus, once shaped by Norse leadership and open trade, gave way to something new. In the northeast, Muscovy rose, its name the root of what we now call Moscow. The people were still Slavic, but operated under a different system. Under Mongol rule, governance became centralized, hierarchical, and dominated by Eastern thought.Western thought emphasized law, feudal contracts, and the rights of lords and cities. Eastern philosophy favored absolute authority, obedience, and control. Power flowed from the top, not from mutual obligation. In the West, oaths bound lords and vassals. In the East, obedience flowed downward from an unquestioned ruler.Russia turned its back on the Latin West and aligned itself with systems of power born from the East, imperial and unyielding.That pivotal shift came into sharp focus with Alexander Nevskyâs decisive choice in 1242.âŚAlexander Nevsky, a prince of Novgorod, faced invasions from two directions. From the West, Catholic crusaders from the Teutonic Order pushed aggressively, determined to impose Western religious and political order. From the East, Mongol overlords watched closely, prepared to assert their brutal authority should Nevsky waver in his allegiance.On April 5, 1242, on the frozen surface of Lake Peipus, Nevsky met the heavily armored Teutonic knights in a legendary clash known as the Battle of the Ice. His lightly equipped Russian troops were agile and intimately familiar with the terrain. They employed tactics blending patience, deception, and carefully calculated retreat. These tactics distinctly reflected Eastern strategic thinking, including principles of manipulation and timing.The heavy crusader knights were ill-equipped for the battle. The ice cracked beneath their weight, plunging many into the freezing water. Nevskyâs victory became symbolic of Russiaâs decisive choice to turn away from Western European dominance and instead accept the Eastern yoke of Mongol power. Nevskyâs choice entrenched Russia in Eastern political philosophy, characterized by pragmatism, indirect manipulation, and power calculation.So, the Battle of the Ice wasnât so much a military victory as a decisive statement that Russiaâs future would unfold under the Eastern logic of calculated statecraft. Russia would be shaped by the pragmatic wisdom echoed centuries earlier by Eastern philosopher Kautilya.The Philosopher Kautilya Long before the Mongols or the Rus, one philosopher wrote the handbook for survival in a ruthless world.Kautilya, also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, was the chief adviser to Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of Indiaâs Mauryan Empire in the fourth century BC. Educated at the ancient university of Takshashila, he wrote the Arthashastra, a sweeping manual on statecraft, intelligence, and war. It describes how politics works, not how it ought to work. Kautilya was a ruthless realist. Even the philosopher himself was born in legend. Picture a dusty village in fourth-century BC India. A newborn boy arrives to a humble household. His father is Chanin. His mother is Chaneshvari. Both are followers of the Jain faith. Jainism is one of the worldâs oldest religions. Jains believe in the existence of souls and strive to minimize harm to all living beings, including plants and animals.In the newborn parentâs tiny courtyard, the village elders gather. They are curious for signs that foretell the childâs fate. The baby startles everyone. He is born with a full set of teeth, a sign in local belief that marks a future king. The boyâs father worries. Kings collect enemies, and enemies bring suffering. To blunt the omen, he breaks one of the infantâs teeth. The monks study the infant again and shake their heads. The prophecy shifts. He will never sit on a throne; he will stand behind it, guiding its power. Kautilya guided Chandragupta Maurya to dismantle the Nanda dynasty, unify the Indian subcontinent, and lay the foundation for the Mauryan Empire, one of the most powerful and administratively sophisticated empires of the ancient world. At its height, it controlled almost the entire Indian subcontinent, from the Himalayas in the north to the Deccan Plateau in the south, and from the Indus Valley in the west to the borders of present-day Bangladesh in the east.The Mauryan Empire ruled about sixty million people, nearly a quarter of humanity at the time. No one matched that scale for more than a thousand years, until the rise of the Mongols.When he wasnât training an emperor or shaping a dynasty, Kautilya wrote. His words, etched in Sanskrit, became a manual for survival in a ruthless world.In the Arthashastra, survival rests on four tools.First, âSama.â Sama is persuasion, but not for the sake of harmony. Sama is influence without resistance. It is calm words, flattery, charm, even seduction, if the moment demands it. The aim is not agreement, it is control. Power exercised without force, where the opponent believes it was their own choice.Next, âDana.â Dana is inducement. A reward, but not a gesture of goodwill. It is a calculated investment. Gold, land, favors, each given not for kindness, but for leverage. In the East, generosity is often strategy in disguise.Third, âBheda.â Bheda is the use of logic or trickery to influence others. It plants suspicion, quietly unravelling unity from within. The most efficient way to defeat an enemy is to make them defeat themselves.Last, âDanda.â Danda means the open use of force. Not unleashed in anger, but in certainty. When all other tools have served their purpose, Danda completes what the others began.Eastern thought is vast, but Kautilyaâs four-tool schema offers its sharpest lesson in political realism. Kautilya serves as a diagnostic lens, not as evidence that medieval Russia consulted the Arthashastra; the parallels emerge from convergent strategic logic. That blueprint echoes through Sun Tzu, the Mongol khans, and the rulers of Muscovy. Eastern philosophy does not ask a ruler to be noble; it asks the ruler to be effective. A wise leader puts self-interest first and moves between persuasion, reward, division, and force when the moment demands.When Muscovy absorbed Mongol methods, it closely echoed Kautilyaâs ideas, whether consciously or simply through historical resonance. Two centuries after Nevsky, on the banks of the Ugra River, a grand prince would embody these Eastern lessons. Ivan III and the Great Stand on the UgraPicture Muscovy in 1480. Two centuries have passed since Nevsky. The grand princes of Moscow now rule a realm knit together by tribute, surveillance, and a network of loyal boyars. Over those two centuries, Muscovy gathered taxes for the khan, slowly turning that machinery to its own ends. Ivan III, Grand Prince of Moscow, born in 1440, hidden from murderers as a child, who started leading armies at the age of 12, has stopped sending silver to the steppe. Akhmat Khan of the Great Horde leads his army west to punish Ivanâs defiance.Summer turns to autumn. The two armies meet on opposite banks of the Ugra River, a quiet tributary of the Oka about one hundred fifty miles southwest of Moscow. It is a tense, prolonged standoff. Ivan blocks every ford, posts archers in the reeds, and waits. No arrows fly. No charges thunder. Day after day, the river lies between them like a mirror.Ivan is not idle. He enters negotiations with the khan to delay. He uses persuasion and trickery to buy time. Meanwhile, he sends envoys to Lithuania, urging them to stay neutral. He releases gifts to minor Tatar princes who resent Akhmat. He spreads whispers that Muscovyâs allies had already raided the Hordeâs rear camp. Persuasion, reward, and division work together silently while the army shows strength only in reserve.Weeks pass. The Hordeâs supplies run low. Winter fog settles over the water. Hidden from Akhmat, Ivanâs allies struck, or seemed to strike, at the Hordeâs base. Whether real or whispered, the threat broke the Khanâs nerve. On a cold November night, Akhmat breaks camp and retreats to the steppe. Ivanâs host watches the torches fade, then marches home without a battle. Russians will remember it as the Great Stand on the Ugra River, the moment the Mongol yoke snapped without a sword stroke. Ivan returns to Moscow and orders the double-headed eagle of Byzantium carved above the Kremlin gate. He claims the title Sovereign of All Rus, collects tribute for himself, and binds the boyars under a single, autocratic will. The lesson is pure Kautilyan philosophy: persuade, reward if useful, divide when necessary, and strike only when certainty is absolute. Ivanâs stand at the Ugra wasnât a single moment in history. It became a blueprint. From Ivan, through the tsars and into the Soviet era, Russiaâs leaders have consistently drawn from that Eastern playbook, refining persuasion, division, and deception into an art.Today, we continue to miss the obvious. Russia still plays from the Eastern playbook. They donât play with obvious brute strength. The Eastern playbook necessitates Kautilyan precision.Sama - to persuade us with lies, false narratives about NATO aggression (Putinâs 2007 Munich speech), historical grievances, red lines, and misunderstood borders. Their aim isnât agreement. Itâs control.Dana - to induce us to enter into prolonged negotiations, knowing some in the West will see a path to glory in a quick diplomatic win. But this generosity is leverage in disguise. It results in delay.Bheda - to divide us, whispering into the cracks between NATO allies (2016 Brexit disinformation), feeding fatigue, exploiting dissent, and making us question each otherâs allegiance long before we question them. Danda - to strike. Yes, with missiles raining down on Kyiv and Kharkiv, but also in quieter, equally destructive ways. Think of the Sandworm Team cyberattacks crippling Estonia and Ukraineâs power grids, or the carefully planted disinformation campaigns that fracture the West from within.We, the democratic republics, NATO nations, the transatlantic WestâŚstill havenât learned how to play the game. Many days, we donât even remember our purpose. And yes, sometimes we compromise our ideals, trading principles for short-term security or convenience. Iraq in 2003 showed the West can trade procedure for speed, too, and we paid the strategic price for that haste. But we still believe those ideals matter.The war in Ukraine isnât just about Ukraine. Itâs not even just about NATO or security guarantees.Itâs about the deepest division between West and East. In the West, power answers to the people. Governance is a messy, slow contract built on consent. Liberal systems aim (imperfectly) to make power answer upward.In the East, people answer to power. In Russiaâs strategic culture, rooted in centuries of centralized rule, power tends to flow downward. We reject Eastern philosophy because it relies on influence built on lies and division to control the people. Instead, we believe the Almighty grants us all the inherent right to life, liberty, and self-determination. We believe that no government can endow individuals with those rights. That governance is for the people, not the oligarchs.In the long arc of history, governance for the people promotes strong, resilient societies.How long will we appease Russia, hoping for peace on their terms, while the war in Ukraine grinds on?May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/arnito/le-quarter-du-samedi-soirLicense code: ITDHTFNPJJJMUH0X Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Apr 29, 2025
17 min
Before we get started, a personal note. Last week, âI Believeâ broke into Apple Podcastsâ Top 10 in philosophy.The show would go on out of conviction alone, but your encouragement makes the work lighter. Thank you for listening, thinking, and being here.And in the words of Bill Belichick, âWe're on to Cincinnati.âPart 1. The Broken Oath and How the Mongols Deceived the Rusâ Princes(Sound of galloping horses fades slightly into the background, replaced by a more narrative, almost hushed tone)Imagine the vast, open grassland steppe. For centuries, the scattered principalities of Rusâ fought their own small wars. But a new threat was emerging from the East, a storm on horseback: the Mongols.At first, these nomadic warriors were a distant rumor. But in 1223, they arrived in force. The Rusâ princes, for once united by a common enemy, gathered their armies. Among them were Mstislav the Bold and other proud princes with their own ambitions.After initial skirmishes, as the Rusâ and their Cuman allies faced the seemingly relentless Mongol advance, a message arrived. It was from the Mongol generals, a promise of safe passage if the princes would lay down their arms. They swore on their honor that no harm would come to those who surrendered.(A slight pause for dramatic effect)Mstislav the Bold, trusting in this oath, perhaps foolishly, perhaps desperately seeking to avoid further bloodshed, convinced some of the other princes. They agreed. They laid down their swords, believing the conflict was over, that a truce had been secured.But the Mongol word, it turned out, was as brittle as dry steppe grass in winter.(Sound of a sudden, sharp, metallic clang)The moment the Rusâ princes and their men were vulnerable, disarmed and unsuspecting, the Mongols fell upon them. It became a slaughter, not a battle. The ground ran red with the blood of the betrayed. Some princes were brutally executed; legend says the Mongols crushed the remaining princes under a platform where the victors celebrated their gruesome triumph.(Tone becomes slightly lower, more somber)This wasnât just a military defeat; it was a betrayal that echoed through Rusâ for generations, deepening distrust and revealing the invadersâ ruthlessness. Though Rusâ stayed connected to Europe, Mongol rule pushed trade and politics eastward. Harsh penalties, executions, and torture grew common. Scholars still debate the human cost: estimates run from singleâdigit population losses to claims approaching oneâhalf. Kalka became a stark warning that promises can vanish like steppe wind. This initial, devastating betrayal paved the way for the Mongol Yoke, centuries of subjugation that forever shaped Russian history.âŚThe betrayal at the Kalka River is the first key piece to understand when negotiating with Russians. For Russia, betrayal isnât theory; itâs memory.Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia signed the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807, forging an alliance. Napoleon then invaded Russia in 1812.In 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact. Two years later, Nazi tanks crossed the Russian border. Russia claims that Western leaders gave informal assurances in the early 1990s that NATO wouldnât expand eastward. Declassified memcons show James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would move ânot one inch eastward.â When NATO expanded anyway, Russians logged it as another broken promise.Put plainly, Russians assume promises are conditional and alliances are temporary. America views international relations through the lens of the Rational Actor Model, or the idea that leaders make decisions like rational calculators. We view logical entities as pursuing self-interest. We assume to generally uphold agreements because they serve our long-term interests. As the first key piece to understand, this truth is also the biggest limitation. Russia assumes we will double-cross them. That assumption changes how we should orient ourselves. Negotiation, to Moscow, is zeroâsum. Anything they concede feels like a loss theyâll pay for later.This is a legacy of Kalka, Napoleon, Hitler, and NATO. Should we be Russian apologists? No. But we should treat our adversary with dignity and respect.When negotiating with Russians, understanding this environment of deep-seated suspicion is critical. And itâs important to recognize its self-fulfilling potential. Russiaâs expectation of betrayal provokes actions that make trust impossible.This isnât to say that negotiation is impossible. But it does fundamentally alter the landscape. We need strategies that accept mistrust as the starting point.Next, letâs think about why orienting talks solely from a Western lens falls short. When we think about negotiations, we need to consider how the Russians approach negotiating. We fast-forward to 1962 and a moment when misunderstanding nearly ended civilization, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Part 2. The Cuban Missile Crisis(Sound of a ticking clock beginsâsteady, deliberateâfades slightly under narration)October 1962. The Cold War reached its most dangerous peak. American U-2 reconnaissance flights over Cuba captured photographic evidence that the Soviets were emplacing medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles just ninety miles from the coast of Florida.An American early warning radar designed to watch for incoming missile strikes became operational in Thule, Greenland, in 1959. Another in Clear, Alaska, came online in 1961. Both looked north, towards the North Pole and the direction of ballistic missiles from the Soviet Union. We were blind to the south.To President John F. Kennedy, the missiles in Cuba were an intolerable threat. With missiles only minutes away, our radars would give no advance notice, leaving the United States no time to respond. For Soviet leadership, particularly Nikita Khrushchev, the move was not sudden. It was strategic and rooted in a long-standing perception: that the United States had already encircled the Soviets.In 1961, the US had Jupiter nuclear missiles in Turkey, a NATO ally and direct neighbor to the Soviet Union. These missiles could strike major Soviet cities with very little warning. To Moscow, they were a daily reminder that the US held a gun to their head. The US refused to remove them. Until Cuba.In early 1962, Khrushchev approved Operation Anadyr, the secret plan to deploy Soviet nuclear missiles, troops, and equipment to Cuba. Officially, this was framed as a defensive act, meant to protect a fellow socialist state from US aggression. Unofficially, it intended to correct a strategic imbalance. If the United States could threaten the USSR from Turkey, the USSR would threaten the United States from Cuba.Simply put, Khrushchev matched threat for threat because he believed it was the only way the US would listen. To negotiate on equal footing, the Soviets needed a threat of equal measure.And so, Soviet missile forces began shipping warheads and launch equipment to Cuba. When the Uâ2s spotted them, most sites were nearly ready.What followed was thirteen days of unprecedented tension. The Kennedy administration weighed air strikes, invasion, and ultimately settled on a naval blockade. American military forces were placed on DEFCON 2, meaning war was imminent.Meanwhile, Soviet field commanders in Cuba continued to complete missile deployment, unaware of the full extent of the geopolitical negotiations underway. And both sides knew how close they were to catastrophic escalation.Then, backchannel diplomacy broke the deadlock.On October 26, a Soviet message proposed to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for a US guarantee not to invade the island. American intelligence questioned the authenticity of the message. On October 27, a more formal message insisted any deal include removing US Jupiters from Turkey. (Sound of a ticking clock grows slightly louder, then recedes)The Kennedy administration was divided. Publicly agreeing to remove the missiles could make the US appear weak. But ignoring the second message threatened progress in negotiations.So they did both.Publicly, the US accepted the first offer: the Soviets would remove their missiles, and the US would pledge not to invade Cuba.Privately, through Robert Kennedyâs backchannel meeting with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, the US agreed to dismantle the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, and we would do so within a few months, quietly, without any public linkage to the crisis.âŚRussians win concessions by making America lose something tangible. Understanding Russian logic means recognizing negotiation is zeroâsum. Leverage and pressure, not goodwill, drive results, though Moscow accepts deals when symmetry and verification are airtight.As an interim summary, letâs remember:First, Russia expects betrayal. Second, negotiation is pressure, not compromise. Thereâs at least a third piece that demonstrates Russiaâs approach to negotiation. Russia negotiates to, and beyond, the brink of conflict. Brinkmanship means the US must back diplomacy with credible, nonâsymbolic military power.There are many ways to exert military influence. A great example of military influence that potentially averted conflict was the Berlin Airlift.Part 3. The Berlin AirliftJune 24, 1948 to May 12, 1949By the summer of 1948, the postwar alliance between the Soviet Union and the Western powers had unraveled. Germany, divided among the victors, became the front line of a new kind of war. The Soviet Union controlled East Germany and the eastern half of Berlin, while the US, Britain, and France administered the west. West Berlin was 100 miles deep in the Soviet zone of Germany. When the Western allies announced plans to introduce a new currency, the Deutsche Mark, in their zones, including West Berlin, Stalin saw it as a direct threat to Soviet influence. The day after the Western Allies announced the Deutsche Mark, the Soviets cut off all ground access to West Berlin. No roads, no trains, no barges. Nothing and no one could enter the city by land or water. The aim was to starve West Berlin into submission and force the Allies out without a shot fired.Roughly two million Berliners depended on outside supplies for survival. The city had food for just over a month. The Soviet calculation was that the US and its allies wouldnât risk war over a remote, encircled city. They expected we would withdraw quietly and allow East Germany and the Soviets to take over. But Washington and our allies chose a different path.On June 26, just two days after the blockade began, the Western Allies launched the Berlin Airlift. US Air Force C-47s and C-54s began flying continuous missions into the cityâs airports, landing supplies around the clock. The British joined almost immediately, followed by other allies.At the height of the airlift, a plane landed every 45 seconds. Over the course of 11 months, Allied aircraft made 277,000 flights, delivering more than 2.3 million tons of supplies, including food, medicine, fuel, clothing, and coal. Crews even dropped candy with miniature parachutes to the children of Berlin, an effort led by US pilot Gail Halvorsen that became known as Operation Little Vittles.These werenât just missions of mercy. They were statements of resolve. The Soviets disputed the Western Alliesâ currency and opened negotiations, intending for us to change our position. They had used military influence to exert pressure, and we would need to use ours to overcome that pressure.The operation required incredible coordination. Crews flew through narrow air corridors set in postâwar agreements that the Soviets could not legally block. Any accidental deviation could have been used as a pretext for military escalation. US and British crews flew in all conditions, including fog, snow, and darkness, risking mechanical failure, Soviet harassment, or fatal crashes.And yet, they kept flying.Meanwhile, the Soviets intensified pressure. East German newspapers mocked the airlift, calling it doomed. Soviet planes buzzed Allied aircraft. Propaganda tried to portray the West as abandoning the people of Berlin.The Soviets pushed Berlin to the brink because they expected America to back down diplomatically rather than risk conflict.The effort continued, and the gamble failed. Public opinion in West Berlin solidified around the Allies, not the Soviets. The West had not only refused to back down, it had demonstrated both logistical superiority and moral clarity.On May 12, 1949, after 322 days, the Soviets lifted the blockade. They had lost the battle for Berlin without firing a shot. In the months that followed, West Germany became a democratic state, and the NATO alliance soon took shape.The Berlin Airlift remains one of the clearest examples of what works when confronting Russian brinkmanship.Knowing we prefer to avoid conflict, the Russians provoke it, hoping weâll back down.To clarify, the Berlin Airlift wasnât an act of war. It was an act of resolve. Military influence can be forceful without being aggressive.In sum, we must respond to Russian brinkmanship by combining diplomacy with direct action.When negotiating with Russia on the world stage, credible willingness to act militarily is essential to successful outcomes.SoâŚWhat Have We Learned?First: Russia expects betrayal. That mindset is centuries deep.Second: They negotiate through pressure, not compromise. To them, negotiation is zero-sum.Third: They push to the brink and expect us to pull back.So negotiating with Russia means pairing diplomatic finesse with credible resolve, an approach grounded in their centuriesâdeep suspicion, zeroâsum mindset, and brinkmanship. To achieve our goals, the US must fully understand how Russia plays the game and be ready to respond to Russian brinkmanship by combining diplomacy with direct action.May God bless the United States of America.Further Reading / Source Material* Airbridge to Berlin by D.M. Giangreco* CIA Declassified Document: Soviet Harassment of Allied Aircraft during the Berlin Airlift* The Berlin Candy Bomber by Gail Halvorsen* Essence of Decision by Graham Allison (for theoretical backdrop) Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
Apr 22, 2025
17 min
Load more